Posted by marina on March 19, 2002 at 10:18:05:
In Reply to: Am I the only mother who thinks posted by Acheick on March 14, 2002 at 18:48:42:
I am building a file on pertinent articles written on the case. If anyone is interested in the religious abusive aspects of the case look at the Socialist website (there are 2 very good articles published before and after the trial) and also the Yates Odyssey from Time magazine. There are glimpses of the true issues (aside and coupled with mental illness of course)there.
From what I have observed for years in the Cog and after in some other religious groups one of the WORST possible cocktails is the combination of vulnerability to mental illness (genetic, that predisposes) and the rigid religious hysteria present in fundamentalism.
The Yates were sort of spiritual followers of the Woroniecki's, some sort of fundamentalist couple with very strange and abusive beliefs (splinters of the Church of Christ, from what I read) -- That explains some of Russell's statements about his marriage being "traditional" " I was the breadwinner, she was the homemaker"
(AT WHAT price? It seems that this kind of DEAL was a lot more damaging to him than to her, especially keeping into account the postpartum psychosis she was vulnerable to)
There's nothing wrong in appearance with an agreement of the sort but it becomes obviously extremely distorted when one of the people involved is deeply suffering and not able to COPE with their alleged part of the bargain. In this cases people CHANGE contracts, but in this case how could you BREAK a GODLY contract?
Do any of us remember ANY case in the Cog where Berg openly endorsed GOOD reason on the part of women not to bear children every year or so? In The Devil Hates Sex he just said if she gets too sick and die let her die and the husband will get a nice young new wife who can bear him more children.
I think this is what Russell Yates will ultimately do, since he loves God so MUCH he wants to have more children, since he LOVES children.
I can post accounts of the condition his wife was in in 1999 after the 4th child, and before he impregnated her again. That would be sufficient to illustrate what is not just BLIND faith, but lack of common sense, and to a certain extent cruelty to another human being (in the name of god of course).
When asked why he did not take her to the psychiatrist she had seen in 1999 who warned HIM she should not have any more children he said "because practically it was too far away" in the part of Houston he was in then.
I personally believe he did not want to face a woman who had been a conscientious doctor after having done exactly what she warned could be disastrous (there are documents and she testified in the case) - With a person THAT severely ILL and with the good insurance he had, WHY NOT CALL the doctor that had indeed helped in the past? Instead he took her to a different place where he complained about how clueless the doctor was. WHY NOT Take her where her previous records were? BEcause that may prove negligence on his part and may at the very least be embarrassing. When it comes to life and death a person could put personal issues aside one may think, but not someone who is so righteous ,so good, so compassionate, so perfect in everything as poor Russell Yates who was hoping his wife would be acquitted and treated in the hope they could have more children together.
I think HE belongs in an institution but unfortunately there are so many who are so functional they are free to be out there and play perfect patriarch.